What does Trump 2.0 mean for the United Nations?
Donald Trump’s second presidency may reshape U.S.-UN relations through assertive negotiations and reform-driven engagement.

In a nutshell
- The U.S. is likely to use funding as a tool for targeted reforms of UN bodies
- Mr. Trump will adapt first-term strategies to address unresolved issues
- Multilateral cooperation possible where UN efforts align with U.S. interests
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here.
Donald Trump has returned as president of the United States. Unlike his previous term, when there was considerable uncertainty about his views and policies toward the United Nations, there is now a record of past practice to predict future policy. That record portends tumultuous times for the UN system with dramatic shifts from those of the Biden administration in U.S. commitments, funding and engagement. That same record, however, also indicates that shifts are likely to be targeted and mitigated by organizations and member states addressing specific U.S. concerns.
Looking back at the first Trump term
When people recall President Trump’s previous interactions with the UN, they characterize it as a contentious relationship. There are plenty of examples to cite. His first budget proposal included large funding cuts for the UN and international organizations – reductions that Congress largely rebuffed. In late 2017, the White House announced Washington’s intent to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), citing an anti-Israel bias and U.S. law barring it from making financial contributions after the organization granted the Palestinians full membership in 2011.
After internal debate, President Trump announced in 2017 that the U.S. would leave the Paris Agreement on climate change, delivering on a campaign promise. A year later, the Trump administration suspended all funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), calling the organization “irredeemably flawed.” The same year, the U.S. also announced its withdrawal from the Human Rights Council. Then in 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to which the U.S. is not a signatory, after the court opened an investigation into crimes allegedly committed by American troops in Afghanistan.
These public contretemps led many to characterize the Trump administration as unilateralist and reflexively hostile to international organizations. However, the reality is more nuanced.
Trump’s calculated approach
Contrary to common perception, the Trump administration worked with the UN and supported it financially when it saw value in its activities. Early in 2017, Mr. Trump hosted members of the UN Security Council at the White House, urging action on North Korea. At the time, he opined, “The United Nations is an underperformer, but it has huge potential.” The U.S. pressed for budgetary restraint and reform of UN peacekeeping operations, but did not use its veto to end those operations. In each year of the first Trump administration, the U.S. provided more funding to the UN system than any year under President Obama. Indeed, the U.S. remained by far the largest contributor in both assessed and voluntary funding to the UN system under President Trump, providing double or even triple the amount of the second-largest contributor, China.
Although the confrontations with UNESCO, the Human Rights Council and the ICC garnered headlines, the U.S. remained involved in and funded most international organizations in which it was a member throughout President Trump’s first term. For example, the U.S. fully engaged with specialized UN agencies, such as the International Telecommunication Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as UN funds and programs like the World Food Program and UNICEF. In fact, the U.S. consistently contributed the largest share of financial support to many of these international organizations.
Contrary to common perception, the Trump administration worked with the UN and supported it financially when it saw value in its activities.
As with preceding administrations, American representatives in multilateral organizations during Mr. Trump’s first term voiced disagreements and sought changes to reflect U.S. preferences. Washington sometimes sought to use its significant financial clout to assist reform efforts.
When this pressure yielded results, the U.S. resumed standard engagement. For instance, after months of quiet diplomacy failed to elicit changes in the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the U.S. threatened to withdraw unless the organization changed shipping rules that Chinese merchants were exploiting to disadvantage U.S. businesses. When the UPU adopted changes that addressed these concerns, the Trump administration dropped its threats to withdraw, and the cooperation proceeded.
Facts & figures
Trump 1.0 milestones in UN engagement
April 2017 − Cut all funding to the UN Population Fund due to the fund’s support for coercive abortion and forced sterilization.
December 2017 − Defended U.S. sovereignty by withdrawing from the UN Global Compact on Migration.
June 2018 − Removed the U.S. from the UN Human Rights Council due to the group’s blatant anti-Israel bias.
September 2019 − First president to convene a meeting at the UN to end religious persecution.
September 2020 − Called on the UN to hold China accountable for their handling of the Covid-19 virus, including refusing to be transparent and failing to contain the virus before it spread.
2017-2020 − Worked to reform and streamline the UN and reduced spending by $1.3 billion.
Source: Trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov
Contrast this with the UN Human Rights Council. As with the UPU, the U.S. attempted to rally support for reforms from other nations, but once those efforts were rebuffed, Washington chose to withdraw from the Human Rights Council. Likewise, U.S. sanctions on the ICC were not implemented in 2017 when the ICC prosecutor requested authorization to launch an investigation into alleged crimes by Americans. Instead, they were implemented only three years later, after the prosecutor proceeded with the investigation despite repeated U.S. efforts to dissuade the ICC. Similarly, the Trump administration engaged in intense, but ultimately unsuccessful, reform discussions with the World Health Organization (WHO) before announcing its intent to withdraw.
In essence, during President Trump’s first term, the U.S. approach to international organizations was to work within given frameworks unless a major concern made normal cooperation impossible. In such cases, his administration used all leverage available to force change. If unsuccessful and the costs were deemed to outweigh the benefits, the U.S. maintained its prerogative to leave.
Washington’s precedent in multilateral bodies
While many saw President Trump’s approach calling for reform or withdrawal from contentious organizations as a dramatic break in U.S. policy, it in fact followed precedent previously established by both Democratic and Republican administrations. For example, the late President Jimmy Carter withdrew the U.S. from the International Labor Organization (ILO) due to concerns about its politicization, including its granting of observer status to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. President Ronald Reagan withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO after it restricted Israel’s participation in its activities and endorsed policies deemed hostile to freedom of the press. President Bill Clinton withdrew the U.S. from the World Tourism Organization and the UN Industrial Development Organization, citing ineffectiveness and a lack of relevance.

In cases of mismanagement and politicization of UN institutions, such as the ILO and UNESCO, the U.S. was willing to rejoin these organizations after they adopted reforms or reversed the decisions and policies that had previously led it to leave. However, in the cases where the U.S. questioned the purpose and relevance of an organization and left, it never rejoined, sending another valuable message.
The main difference between President Trump and his predecessors is his appetite for confrontation. While previous U.S. administrations were willing to challenge the UN and other international organizations and use American financial and diplomatic clout to press for change, they focused on one or two organizations or issues at a time. By trying to avoid ruffling feathers in multiple fora, previous administrations hoped other governments would be more amenable to Washington’s requests. President Trump did not and does not subscribe to this view. Instead, his first administration pressed for reforms across multiple fronts simultaneously. This approach will likely characterize his second term as well.
Back to the future
Although condemned as “unilateralist,” the Trump approach is less a strategic change from historical U.S. practice, especially under Republican administrations, than a shift in emphasis. The shift is perceived as much more significant due to the domestic political polarization that has come to color America’s approach to international organizations. Increasingly, Democrats resist using hardball tactics in multilateral fora to elicit support for U.S. positions, while Republicans are and will be ready to use such approaches. This has resulted in sharp policy reversals upon changes in U.S. administrations or legislative majorities, leaving some foreign governments reeling.
Read more by international regulatory affairs expert Brett Schaefer
- Peacekeeping sunset
- The UN Human Rights Council is broken
- A narrow path to reforming the UN Security Council
For example, upon entering office, Democratic President Joe Biden began to systematically reverse many of the actions and decisions of the Republican Trump administration, including those involving international organizations. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO was rescinded. Sanctions on the ICC were lifted. The U.S. rejoined UNESCO and pressed Congress to pay arrears. President Biden restored funding to UNRWA, reengaged with the Human Rights Council and rejoined the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Based on his previous term, it is relatively easy to predict what actions the second Trump administration will likely take in its first few months. He could and likely will, just as quickly, reverse President Biden’s decisions. But might President Trump go even further?
Scenarios
Very likely: Status quo ante
On his first day back in the Oval Office, President Trump for the second time signed an executive order to pull the U.S. from the WHO. The Trump administration will very likely announce that the U.S. will also withdraw − again − from other organizations that President Biden rejoined, such as UNESCO and the Human Rights Council. Likewise, the U.S. will almost certainly terminate funding for UNRWA and again withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the Global Compact on Migration, which the U.S. abandoned in Mr. Trump’s first term. These actions would return U.S. policy roughly to where it was in late 2020.
Having done all this, the new Trump administration could revisit efforts that floundered in his first term. The U.S. may well leverage its support for certain institutions to entice reengagement and secure cooperation from governments eager to offer the U.S. “wins” to forestall broader confrontation.
Likely: First term plus more
In addition to restoring previous policies and decisions, the second Trump administration will likely take additional steps to accelerate implementation or apply his policy vision more broadly. For instance, in addition to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which President Trump did through executive order on January 20, he might withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. To enhance efforts to curb illegal migration, the Trump administration might condition funding to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration on commitments not to facilitate the transit of migrants through Mexico to claim asylum.
The administration is also likely to be skeptical of renewing UN peacekeeping operations that are not fulfilling their mandates – a prime example being the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), a mission in Lebanon that failed and allowed Hezbollah to become “the most heavily armed non-state group in the world.” Due to UNIFIL’s ineffectiveness, the Islamist terror group operating as a proxy for Iran was able to attack Israel from an area in southern Lebanon that was supposed to be demilitarized apart from UNIFIL and Lebanese forces.
Additionally, the Trump administration could complement the decision of Israel by demanding the elimination of UNRWA and requiring alternative UN humanitarian organizations to state their willingness to operate in Gaza and neighboring countries in return for U.S. support. In addition to restoring sanctions on ICC officials, the U.S. may also expand the measures or terminate relations entirely, including sharing information on ongoing cases unrelated to the U.S. and Israel.
Possible but less likely: Maximum pressure
The second Trump administration may up the ante even further by significantly curtailing U.S. contributions to the UN system as was proposed in his first budget. Although Congress short-circuited that in his first term, the House of Representatives passed an appropriations bill in 2024 that significantly reduced UN funding, including providing zero dollars for the UN’s regular budget.
And now, with the Republicans controlling the House, Senate and White House, the possibility exists for deep cuts across the UN system. Indeed, the heads of President Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, proffered those cuts as possibilities in a recent op-ed. The White House and Congress may demand reforms or changes to restore funding.
Concluding thoughts
From a UN perspective, the baseline scenario promises a return to the policies of 2020. However, bolstered by Republican control of all three branches of the federal government, the incoming Trump administration will likely act more quickly, decisively and aggressively than before. The UN and member states that wish to see the U.S. remain engaged should be thinking deeply about reforms and changes that could be adopted to elicit that engagement.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.